Connecticut gun owners threaten violence

[The2ndAmendment]

No, we are Democratic Republic. That was by design. And do you know why? So that the common people did not rule but still, change happens at the ballot box even so.

No, we are a Republic, and a Republic only.

Article IV, Section 4, of the United States Constitution​

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Partisanship aside, the State would do its damnedest to see to that in the process of jury selection. These days the questionnaires are carefully designed to weed out the potential for informed nullification, so much so that a prospective juror's answers can later be used as grounds for perjury charges should the nullification issue arise.

The fix is in, so some degree of violent civil unrest seems inevitable.

The smart juror answers the questions as needed to get on the jury, then he keeps his mouth shut the entire time, before, during and after the trial.

But yes, the "fix" is in for the most part, but not even merely enough to justify an armed response.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Historically, it seems to be the only one that usually works. This country exists because of a violent uprising, not civil disobedience and passive resistance.

Look at Ukraine, Venezuela, Egypt, Libya, Cuba, etc. Only fools think they can change anything at the ballot box.

How did blacks get the right to vote?

Are you claiming that the Civil War was fought without firearms (mostly by whites)?

Are you claiming that the Deacons for Defense and Justice didn't march alongside Martin Luther King with shotguns?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, we are Democratic Republic. That was by design. And do you know why? So that the common people did not rule but still, change happens at the ballot box even so.

No, we are a Republic, and a Republic only.

You are incorrect, but feel free to pat yourself on the back some more.

"A democratic republic is, strictly speaking, a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

250 million guns in the hands of 80 million private gun owners. Some of those gun owners are in law enforcement and the military and will side with those who refuse to comply. I say let the Civil War get rolling.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Most juries will acquit or hang if a law abiding citizen defended his Right to Bear Arms, there will always be at least one or two jurors in even the the most Progressive states that will hang in such a scenario.

Murdering a police officer doing his job with a warrant, isn't defending the Right to Bear Arms.

No jury would accept that argument. I pray you never learn this in person.

No, you as an individual Juror will not accept this argument. There are people who actually think differently than you, and the frequency of those beliefs can be reliably predicted through mean and standard deviation.

Go to a Dunkin Donuts in New York, see if you can find twelve consecutive people who endorse your vision. You might succeed one or twice every 50-60 cycles.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Ever heard of the Battle of Athens, Tennessee? It is the only 20th Century armed revolution in the United States against the local police, and it succeeded.

About as successful as expected...

"The new government encountered challenges including at least eleven resignations of county administrators.[citation needed] On January 4, 1947, four of the five leaders of the GI Non-Partisan League declared in an open letter: "We abolished one machine only to replace it with another and more powerful one in the making."[11] The League failed to establish itself permanently and traditional political parties soon returned to power.[7]"
Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You changed the topic to dodge the question, like all lying and deflecting Progressives.

You said they would all end up dead or convicted. Did they end up dead and convicted?

Also, how long did those FDR/Trumann/National Democrat political machines last after their resurgence "to the throne"? Not very long. The Battle Of Athens significantly destabilized those machines for perpetuity and they eventually collapsed within the following decade. The gig was up. Naturally, since they held residual political power in other parts of Tennessee, they were able to grasp some straws as they drowned.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Most of the laws in the US are what's known as "extra-Constitutional". They still apply.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments nullify such laws. One day, you Progressives will be swallowing the Ninth in its entirety.

Not gonna happen., but dream on.

Your open contempt for the Constitution is duly noted, and your frequent attempts to intimidate us into submission with overwhelming military might.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

About as successful as expected...

"The new government encountered challenges including at least eleven resignations of county administrators.[citation needed] On January 4, 1947, four of the five leaders of the GI Non-Partisan League declared in an open letter: "We abolished one machine only to replace it with another and more powerful one in the making."[11] The League failed to establish itself permanently and traditional political parties soon returned to power.[7]"
Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You changed the topic to dodge the question, like all lying and deflecting Progressives.

You said they would all end up dead or convicted. Did they end up dead and convicted?

Also, how long did those FDR/Trumann/National Democrat political machines last after their resurgence "to the throne"? Not very long. The Battle Of Athens significantly destabilized those machines for perpetuity and they eventually collapsed within the following decade. The gig was up. Naturally, since they held residual political power in other parts of Tennessee, they were able to grasp some straws as they drowned.

I responded that it amounted to nothing and times have changed. They were armed at roughly the same level then. That's far from true now. Some guy in Nevada can kill you dead and go out for coffee now. Get with the times.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Ever heard of the Battle of Athens, Tennessee? It is the only 20th Century armed revolution in the United States against the local police, and it succeeded.

That's not a revolution. The corrupt government was ultimately overthrown by the ballot box.

The armed GIs storming the police station were insuring that the vote was counted accurately. The corruption of the police department was egregious and shameful. In the current information age, this level of corruption could not go unnoticed or ignored by the FBI.

You mean that ballot box that was rigged and ineffectual until ARMED FORCE was used to make it meaningful?

Have you checked out that website I linked to you last month?

http://www.gayswithguns.net/

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments nullify such laws. One day, you Progressives will be swallowing the Ninth in its entirety.

Not gonna happen., but dream on.

Your open contempt for the Constitution is duly noted, and your frequent attempts to intimidate us into submission with overwhelming military might.

It's not contempt, it's a dandy little document, but it's out of date and doesn't matter a damn when a drone can kill you and you never even saw it. I deal in reality, not hopes and dreams or how things used to be. Anyone who believes the Constitution rules your life has been asleep for 200 years.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm going to interfere.

You have the ABILITY to upon fire upon a Government Agent if you believe they have crossed a fine line, but your action will be adjudicated by a Jury of your Peers, who will LEGALLY decide whether or not you and/or the Government was justified in your/their actions.

yes, you have the ability to shoot a cop.

but not the legal right.

not if he is following a warrant

If you're acquitted, you had the legal right, because the Jury is the highest Legal Body of in the land.

If you disagree, please inform us which superior Legal Body may overturn the acquittal.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yes I do. I have the right to tell my government when it has stepped too far.

I'm going to interfere.

You have the ABILITY to upon fire upon a Government Agent if you believe they have crossed a fine line, but your action will be adjudicated by a Jury of your Peers, who will LEGALLY decide whether or not you and/or the Government was justified in your/their actions.

Dead people don't get their days in court.

Fire on a cop or a government agent and you won't be arrested; you'll be driven away from the scene in a body bag.

Not if you peacefully surrendered yourself after befalling a Government Agent. If you truly believed you were in the right, you would make sure all of your neighbors knew what just happened, as well as people on the street, while "Law Enforcement" detained you for trial.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No, we are Democratic Republic. That was by design. And do you know why? So that the common people did not rule but still, change happens at the ballot box even so.

No, we are a Republic, and a Republic only.

You are incorrect, but feel free to pat yourself on the back some more.

"A democratic republic is, strictly speaking, a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens."
Democratic republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WOAH, YOU TOTALLY OMITTED MY REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!

Article IV, Section 4, of the United States Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

WOAH WOAH INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY FROM A LIBERAL WOAH WOAH​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EfhAFA2yFE]WOAH-OH-OH-AH-AH-AH-AAAA-HA-AH-AH-AH - YouTube[/ame]


What does "ultimate power" even mean in that sentence you linked?

The ultimate "legislative" power? That surely is Congress and the State Legislators, which adhere to a Republican Form of Government.

The ultimate "judicial" power? That surely is the Jury, and not a collective decision at a ballot box. AND THANK GOD

 

[The2ndAmendment]

There is no justification for Restoring the Rule of Law at this time.

So long as Trial by Jury remains, only the People have themselves to blame for Tyranny.

I knew I was right about you. REMF all the way.

[MENTION=20866]Dutch[/MENTION], are you claiming there is justification for Revolution against the Federal Government (at this current time)?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Not gonna happen., but dream on.

Your open contempt for the Constitution is duly noted, and your frequent attempts to intimidate us into submission with overwhelming military might.

It's not contempt, it's a dandy little document, but it's out of date and doesn't matter a damn when a drone can kill you and you never even saw it. I deal in reality, not hopes and dreams or how things used to be. Anyone who believes the Constitution rules your life has been asleep for 200 years.

Seeing that it has not been Amended to suit your vision, it is perfectly up to date.
[MENTION=47594]PaintMyHouse[/MENTION] , which part of Article V is not up to date?

Article V, of the United States Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This thread has been a rather enjoyable fly-swatting experience.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no justification for Restoring the Rule of Law at this time.

So long as Trial by Jury remains, only the People have themselves to blame for Tyranny.

I knew I was right about you. REMF all the way.

Are you claiming there is justification for Revolution against the Federal Government?

He's "claiming" that you are a total *****.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your open contempt for the Constitution is duly noted, and your frequent attempts to intimidate us into submission with overwhelming military might.

It's not contempt, it's a dandy little document, but it's out of date and doesn't matter a damn when a drone can kill you and you never even saw it. I deal in reality, not hopes and dreams or how things used to be. Anyone who believes the Constitution rules your life has been asleep for 200 years.

Seeing that it has not been Amended to suit your vision, it is perfectly up to date.

It doesn't fit your vision either. Now what?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

WOAH, YOU TOTALLY OMITTED MY REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!

That's because it doesn't change what we are. I could have quoted Benjamin Franklin as well, but that doesn't change it either.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

WOAH, YOU TOTALLY OMITTED MY REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!

That's because it doesn't change what we are. I could have quoted Benjamin Franklin as well, but that doesn't change it either.

You are claiming that quoting the Constitution, in order to determine what the Constitution says, is not a valid reference concerning the words within the Constitution itself?